Letter from concerned business owner to The Canadian Chamber of Commerce regarding their article on Mandatory vaccination policies and their suggestion to use fear and coercion to have people vaccinate or loose their jobs and if needed to violate human rights, fire them and take the legal consequence

Dylan Eleven | Truth11.com | March 9 2021

This letter was sent to us by a reader. They have sent it to the Canadian chamber of commerce and human rights commission.


To: The Canadian Chamber of Commerce,
CC: The Canadian Human Rights Commission,

I am writing this letter in response to the article “Mandatory Vaccination Policies in the Workplace – Should You Implement One?” Which was recently published on the website of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

So, “Mandatory Vaccination Policies in the Workplace – Should You Implement One?” The answer, based on any basic understanding of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code, must always be NO.

This article is disgusting! From the first word it uses deceptive language to diminish the weight of our laws which protect all Canadians from discrimination. And then goes on to imply there are ways around those laws. The Chamber of Commerce blog should not be giving advice how to go around our Canadian Charter and Human Rights Code. It is morally despicable.

‘Mandatory’ vaccine policies would be a direct violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Human Rights Code. No matter what deceit your organization is attempting to spread, you can not change that simple fact. How dare a this author instruct business owners to use tactics of coercion and intimidation to encourage employees to take an experimental ‘vaccine’ “due to their fear,” in order to avoid the “potential legal risks” of a ‘mandatory’ policy.

The writer gives unsound legal advice. This article encourages business to use tactics of coercion and intimidation, and/or if all else fails to eventually fire without cause. In other words: to discriminate against employees due to a Human Rights Code Ground Reason, and then face the liability that ensues! This leaves any business which actually does take this advice open to liability. Businesses are advised to act in violation of the Canadian Charter and the Human Rights Code, and then to face the liability of their actions.

Instead of the Canadian Government violating The Charter and The Human Rights Code by imposing this ‘vaccine,’ the onus and the liability are being forced on Canadian businesses and individuals, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is clearly playing it’s part.

This is an attempt, through lies, coercion and intimidation, to execute the communist playbook at the level of every business, while the government hides behind the businesses and individuals working there. It is those businesses and individuals who will

face the liability for the acts of discrimination described in this article. Not the Canadian Government, and not the Chamber of Commerce.

Rest assured that the author is available to represent us as legal council, in the event that we do take her advice. She will be happy to profit from the court cases that this article will give rise to. As per her suggestion that we will require legal council in that event, she has even left her phone number in hope of reaching new potential clients. Talk about creating a problem and providing a solution! This will create lots of work and profit for the attorneys who will represent these unfortunate clients, and in doing so make a mockery of our individual rights and freedoms and the laws of our country.

How dare the Canadian Chamber of Commerce publish this article on their website? How dare they promote this line of action? The author of this article and those who have published it should be ashamed of themselves. This subversive and deceptive article attempts to erode the rights and freedoms that make Canada a great place to live and work. And to make Canadian individuals responsible for it. This is an outrage.

I now request that you remove this article from your website and issue an immediate retraction. You must email the retraction to all the people to whom the original article was issued by email. This article contains Communist Propaganda and unsound legal advice which will harm Canadian businesses and individuals. You have no right to send this subversive and deceptive Propaganda to the emails of every member of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I personally did not appreciate its contents or the tone in which it was delivered. I am a serious person who takes our livelihoods, our lives, our freedoms, and our rights seriously.

Issuing this types of op-ed ‘spin’ article under the guise of legal advice is immoral, it is a gross overstep of the scope of your organization, and it encourages lines of action that are against the law. Please retract this now, before its misleading content harms a Canadian business or individual.

Additionally, since you are actively promoting the mass violation of the Canadian Human Rights Code, I will be reporting this incident to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


A. W.
Small Business Operator, Mother, and Resident in Ontario.


Here is the original article she is referring to:


MAR 02, 2021

Mandatory Vaccination Policies in the Workplace – Should You Implement One?

Canadian Chamber of Commerce

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce brings together a vast network of over 450 chambers of commerce and boards of trade and more than 200,000 businesses, from all regions and sectors of the economy. This network represents diverse viewpoints; the opinions expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

By: Priya Sarin
Partner, Sherrard Kuzz LLP

With the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines underway in Canada, many employers are now asking whether they can or should implement a mandatory vaccination policy to ensure worker safety.

The ability to make vaccination a mandatory condition of employment depends on a number factors, including the nature of an employer’s business, whether employees are unionized, and if there are any human rights issues at play. An organization whose employees work in a higher risk environment or with vulnerable populations (e.g., a hospital, school, or retirement home), is more likely to be able to require vaccination for health and safety reasons, than an organization whose employees can easily work from home, or continue to work safely using personal protective equipment (PPE).

Although an employer may be able to require vaccination as a condition of employment, proactive measures to encourage voluntary COVID-19 vaccination may be preferable, as they will minimize potential legal risks (described below).  Further, a mandatory vaccination policy may ultimately be unnecessary if employees choose to receive the vaccine at the earliest available opportunity due to their fear of contracting COVID-19 and becoming seriously ill.

Mandatory Vaccination in a Non-Unionized Workplace
Subject to human rights and privacy considerations, an employer may implement a mandatory vaccination policy for new non-unionized employees. This vaccination requirement should be expressly included in an offer of employment.

An employer may also implement a mandatory vaccination policy for existing employees (subject to human rights considerations); however, this could result in potential liability. If an employee refuses to be vaccinated on the basis of personal choice and the nature of the employee’s work is not “high risk”, the employer may have no option but to terminate that individual’s employment without cause. Similarly, if the employee is not permitted to work without being vaccinated, this could result in a constructive dismissal claim. In either scenario, the employer could be liable for statutory, contractual or common law termination entitlements. 

Mandatory Vaccination in a Unionized Workplace
In a unionized workplace, a mandatory vaccination policy could be grieved on the basis that it violates the collective agreement. If challenged, the employer would be required to establish that the policy is reasonable for health and safety reasons, among other factors. 

To date, no arbitral decision has considered the reasonableness of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. Arbitrators have previously found mandatory flu vaccination policies to be reasonable; however, those decisions may be of limited assistance because the flu vaccine decisions principally arose in the healthcare sector and in respect of workers who provide direct care to vulnerable patients.  Further, none of the flu vaccine policies which were upheld made vaccination a mandatory condition of employment. Instead, if an employee refused vaccination, the flu vaccine policy provided for non-disciplinary measures such as taking an unpaid leave of absence for the duration of the influenza outbreak or continued use of PPE (i.e. masks).

As such, if a vaccination policy is implemented in a unionized workplace outside of healthcare, an employer should consider consulting with the union first and offering non-disciplinary alternatives for those who choose not to be vaccinated.

Human Rights Considerations
If an employee is unable to receive the COVID-19 vaccine due to a medical or religious reason, or any other human rights protected ground, an employer has a duty to accommodate the employee to the point of undue hardship. Some examples of accommodation include: an exemption from the requirement to be vaccinated; moving the individual to a location that does not require direct contact with coworkers, customers, residents or the public; and continued use of PPE to mitigate the risk of transmission. 

If an employer asserts they are unable to accommodate an employee to the point of undue hardship, the employer should be prepared to demonstrate that vaccination is a bona fide occupational requirement of the position.

Bottom line: if an employer determines a vaccination policy is necessary, even if the policy does not make vaccination mandatory, the employer should work with experienced legal counsel to ensure the policy complies will all applicable privacy, human rights and health and safety-related requirements.   

Priya Sarin is a lawyer with Sherrard Kuzz LLP, one of Canada’s leading employment and labour law firms, representing employers. 


About this entry